1. Field of the Invention
The present invention generally relates to the electronic health records. More specifically, the present invention relates to methods for managing electronic health records stored by a healthcare records data bank that includes providing an individual with portable transferable access devices.
2. Description of the Related Art
Electronic data is pervasive; electronic data records have been created to capture details about almost any conceivable transaction or event. Medical records, for example, contain various data about patients, including medical history data, test data, medication data, etc. Electronic medical records (EMRs) have become a vital resource for doctors, researchers, laboratories, insurance providers, and claims-processors, etc.
One of the problems created by the proliferation of data is the management and accessibility of the data. Currently, electronic medical records are often stored by multiple unrelated entities, none of which are specialized in providing data storage or retrieval services. For example, a health care provider may maintain an internal set of electronic records for individual patients treated by the provider. Similarly, a pharmacist may maintain records for prescriptions dispensed to a patient at a particular location or pharmacy chain. Another health care provider, however, will not normally have on-demand access to the records of either. As illustrated by even this simple example, the electronic medical records related to a patient may be spread across many entities, and each entity is limited to accessing EMRs created by that particular entity.
Providing access to a complete collection of electronic medical records from this widely distributed data has proven to be very difficult. One proposed solution for creating a comprehensive EMR system involves creating a data federation. In such a federation, the electronic medical records related to a particular patient may be maintained at individual organizations (e.g., the healthcare provider, pharmacist, clinic, etc.), or at a number of repositories established to consolidate some EMR data. For example, the Cross Enterprise Document Sharing (XDS) profile (defined by the Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise (IHE) organization) is representative of a federated model. The XDS profile describes a clinical domain where institutions that join the domain share electronic medical records with one another. The clinical domain may include one to many data repositories storing electronic medical records.
Such models will typically rely on some form of federated query or retrieval operation when a request is made to view electronic health records for a given patient. That is, federated systems may respond to an EMR data request by (i) identifying each node that may include EMR data for the patient, and (ii) attempting to retrieve the relevant EMR data from each such provider node. The distributed nature of this model is a significant weakness, especially considering that many EMR systems used by healthcare providers are not designed to respond to what amounts to on-demand requests for patient data on a 24×7×365 basis. Thus, one substantial problem with this approach is that it requires a healthcare provider to become a data services organization. However, there is little economic incentive for many providers to invest in the equipment or personnel required to achieve an acceptable level of availability, security and reliability. Furthermore, many providers are reluctant to participate in a data federation due to fears of data security, and concern over regulatory compliance. Not surprisingly, attempts to build a federated model have largely failed due to both reliability issues (i.e., are all of the provider nodes available to respond to a given query?) and performance issues that arise, as EMR records must be individually retrieved from each provider node that stores such records.
Furthermore, the federated model may exclude non-traditional organizations from participating in the federation. For example, massage and physical therapists, whole-body scanning centers, vitamin and nutritional supplement providers, and even the individual to whom the records pertain, may not be able to contribute or access relevant electronic medical records to the federation. As approaches to healthcare treatment becomes more holistic, it would be advantageous if these types of non-traditional entities could contribute to a comprehensive heath care record associated with a particular individual, even though many such entities would most likely be prohibited from accessing most, if not all, of the EMR records.
Another problem with this approach is that the individual patient lacks any control over the EMR records created to store information about the patient. Furthermore, the patient has no awareness of how, or by whom, his/her data is being used.
Accordingly, there remains a need for a comprehensive EMR system. Such a system should be able to provide convenient access to a complete collection of electronic records related to the health care of an individual patient, regardless of the source of such records. Further, a comprehensive EMR system should provide a level or reliability, responsiveness and patient control/awareness that promotes the wide spread adoption of the system.